Talk:Captain's Oath
Text of oath With the way that the speaking of the oath was presented, I'm almost certain that it was not what is presented in the article ("Space the final frontier... etc). There was a significant voice cut between the ceremony and the launching of the Enterprise. The impression given at the ceremony was that the oath was a standard thing, and not specific to the mission at hand, especially since he discussed repeating the oath that he had originally taken, etc. -- sulfur (talk) 13:13, May 20, 2013 (UTC) :Kirk's speech in the movie specifically mentions "Those words... Space, the final frontier...". The dialogue is pretty clear that Kirk is reciting the Oath. 13:15, May 20, 2013 (UTC) Yes, one follows the other, but the sound of the voice is significantly different from one scene to the next, and there is no good reason to believe that the oath would be significant to a mission rather than to the general ideal. -- sulfur (talk) 13:24, May 20, 2013 (UTC) ::from what i saw it as we don't know what the captain's oath is. the whole "Space, the final frontier..." speech following Kirk's speech felt like it was starting a new scene. Jkirk8907 (talk) 19:38, June 5, 2013 (UTC) That's my point -- I'm strongly convinced that the "captain's log" bit is not the captain's oath, despite its presentation as such on this page. -- sulfur (talk) 19:51, June 5, 2013 (UTC) ::guess we'll find out when the dvd comes out in the fall. Jkirk8907 (talk) 20:00, June 5, 2013 (UTC) :::While the placement of the lines seems to suggest it is the pledge, the mention of the five-year mission (which the Enterprise had not yet been assigned when Kirk was placed in command) makes me want to go with sulfur on this one. - Mitchz95 (talk) 01:53, June 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::There is a discussion on the "captain's log" bit in the latest comic. Here is the discussion. :::::McCoy: Did you write that? Because I don't think you wrote that. :::::Kirk: Computer, pause captain's log. :::::Computer: Captain's log paused. :::::Kirk: How did you get in here, Bones? I thought you locked the door. :::::McCoy: The ship's doctor can go wherever he damn well pleases. I don't think you wrote that beautiful ode to your job. Sounds more like Uhura. Maybe even the Russian kid. :::::Kirk: Have a little faith in your captain. Every once in a while I like to reflect on why we're out here. It's good for the soul. ::::I leave the interpretion of this dialogue to others.Throwback (talk) 03:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::In the first movie, the oath was recited by old-Spock at the end of the film, with the wording differences: "her ongoing mission" instead of "her five-year mission" so I would assume this was also the wording Kirk originally used in his first pledge in 2258. --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:28, June 13, 2013 (UTC) I'm still not convinced that it is the "oath". What "old-Spock" said in the first movie is the classic TOS monologue. What Kirk said in this movie is the classic TOS monologue. There was separation from the ceremony. The voice cut was different. We should not be calling the monologue the "Captain's Oath". -- sulfur (talk) 13:12, June 13, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think the speech is pretty solid and even references the statement before it's made, the speech is all about how revenge and war are the wrong path to go and peaceful exploration is where Starfleet should focus on. "When Christopher Pike first gave me his ship, he had me recite the Captain's Oath. Words I didn't appreciate at the time. Now I see them as a call for us to remember who we once were, and who we must be again. And those words: Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship ''Enterprise. Her five-year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before." I think we would need a production source to say that the Star Trek-monologue was not intended to be part of the speech even though it was, but that we should consider it in a way that it goes from on-screen realism to voice-over surrealism. or something like that. I don't see that that is the way it should be interpreted and that that is the only way it could be interpreted. Since it seems like the writers intention was specifically to tie the monologue into the in-universe realism reality. If that makes sense. :D --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC) ::::::If we're going to say the voice over is the oath, then the words "''Enterprise" and "five year" should be removed and replaced with blanks (like ________ for example), since they are clearly interchangeable depending on the ship and mission. That said, I tend to think this isn't the oath, or if the oath is anything like this the current text is at least a poetic interpretation. - 16:59, June 20, 2013 (UTC) :::::I reworded the article a bit so that, that's not necessary. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:49, June 20, 2013 (UTC) :::::::The thoughts presented at the beginning of this talk page are correct. The monologue given at the end of the film is not the captains oath, nor is it a part of Kirk's public address. There is clear difference between the voice, indicating a change in scene. The change is severe and distinct, indicating it is a deliberate one. Given previous information, and using the audible difference in the ending scene, it would be unwise to presume the monologue is the captains oath. It remains unclear whether it is based on, or draws wording from the oath, however it cannot be disputed that it is not the oath in its entirety. :::::::I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight another error in the article. In "Background Information" the statement ' Kirk's recital of the oath in the film marks the first time that it appears as part of dialogue and not as a voice-over speech, only spoken to the audience ' is given. This is incorrect, as the difference in vocal patterns and clarity show the monologue is not given in dialect, but as a voice over. The words spoken are also not the captains oath, as has already been proven, and so the statement bears at minimum two errors. :::::::I recommend that the article, and the opinions of those who believe the monologue to be the captains oath, are changed in order to reflect the clear truth that this is not the case. :::::::-- 22:36, July 3, 2013 (UTC) :::::"Voice-over" and "off-screen" are two different things. without a quote from a production source supporting your opinion, we should accept the dialogue as it is. The line "Those words:" links the two together, apocrypha agrees, any nitpicking about differences in sound recorded during filming and during looping is just nitpicking and doesn't establish anything. Lets get a quote from the writers first. --Pseudohuman (talk) 04:43, July 4, 2013 (UTC)